AT THE HEART OF THE ROAD TRANSPORT INDUSTRY.

Call our Sales Team on 0208 912 2120

Legalized Blackmail.

3rd February 1933
Page 51
Page 52
Page 51, 3rd February 1933 — Legalized Blackmail.
Close
Noticed an error?
If you've noticed an error in this article please click here to report it so we can fix it.

Which of the following most accurately describes the problem?

The Editor, THE COMMERCIAL MOTOR.

[3983] Sir,—With reference to Section 19 of the Road Traffic Act (1930), this is surely best described as above, inasmuch as the law now allows the commercialvehicle driver to visit the nearest police station and report that he has driven non-stop for longer than the prescribed 51 hours, or has not taken the necessary rest periods, to ensure that action is taken against his employer.

Imagine this "sanctuary of spite" provided by the law to the "one black sheep in every 100 men," to offer up, as a legalized sacrifice, his employers, to the gods of maliciousness and venom, curried from some deserved reprimand, or slight rebuke.

It causes me amazement that in the cases heard recently, the word of only the driver in some eases, but at the most, of the driver and second man on the vehicle, has been accepted as reliable evidence and proof that the offence was committed, whereas in not one case has definite or real proof, in any shape or form, been put forward by the prosecution.

Moreover, the defendants have been able, in more than one case, to substantiate the following facts :— (1) That instructions had been issued to the driver verbally and/or in writing, to observe Section 19 of the Act to the full.

(2) That the journey and work in question relating to the prosecution had, on many previous occasions, been accomplished with ease in far less time, and complying with Section 19.

(3) That there was no need, so far as the employer was concerned, for the offence to be committed.

(4) That the employers had no control over the driver, to compel him to comply, and further, as any prosecution resulting would not involve the employee, and rely purely on his evidence of having committed the crime, the law offered every inducement to the driver flagrantly, and yet with impunity, to break the law.

(5) That when "the law" is asked "how can the B37 employers enforce compliance with, etc., by their men, and thus avoid their most unenviable present position, of being there to be 'shot at,'" there appeared to be no, and so far still has not appeared any, authority or the "law" itself, capable of advising how to avoid, or even admit, that Section 19 can be, in its present form, observed in entirety.

No I this is England, and though the "law may be an ass," it has to be obeyed, so we have learned counsel for the prosecution (not having the slightest knowledge of, or reason to know, that a modern commercial vehicle is far more advanced in every way than its counterpart in the private car world) putting forward the case against the "Roman galley masters" for the Anglo-Saxon slaves, something like this :— The journey from A to B is 200 miles, and the vehicle, a maximum-capacity rigid six-wheeler, should, with a legal maximum speed of 20 m.p.h. and Section 19, have taken at least X hours. The defendants told the driver before he left that, unless he did the journey there and back in X divided by 2 hours, that he would be discharged, and as the driver says that is so, and did the journey in X less half hours, or X plus twice as many hours (it is immaterial either way), the case is proved, and 5+ hours' continual driving was exceeded, and the defendants found guilty.

What a different story, I suggest, the real truth gives us, as follows:— Before leaving, the driver (the one black sheep) is reprimanded by his employers for some fault, and as Section 19 is such an easy gun to fire, the disgruntled and malicious driver goes to his favourite coffee stall and stays there twice as long as usual, also at every other of his usual calls on the journey to and from A to B, and on return is, of course, and quite rightly. in for trouble. The end of the story is a visit to the nearest police station and the vivid account of having stayed at the wheel for C hours non-stop to and from A to B, and for the law this is proof that the defendants "caused to be committed " an array of crimes under Section 19, although never .with the vehicle on the journey.

Surely it is agreed by all that if ever a modern law needed immediate revision, or complete withdrawal, Section 19 stands well forward, and fully merits this procedure.

The saving grace is that the men who are so ignorant and unfair as to avail themselves of this form of legalized revenge are so definitely in the minority. On the other hand, the loyalty, when at or away from home, of the majority of drivers, does much to eliminate the full force and extent to which "the men with courage enough to employ labour, alleviate unemployment and pull their weight in this country's hour of need" might, and could, be " rewarded " for their efforts, under Section 19, by the few, but dangerous, blacks or reds (whichever they are called).

SCYTHE.

Tags


comments powered by Disqus